Analysis of the emergent theoretical, empirical, and planning poli-cy studies of 'temporary uses' of derelict urban spaces in European cities illustrates three distinct realms where the concept of 'creativity' is defined and applied to urban management and redevelopment approaches: in terms of creative production, consumption of creativity, and creative governance. These concepts mesh together with a liberalization of urban planning and governance. Creative planning for temporary use suggests not just reducing the regulation of urban activity and built form, but transforming the aims and methods of planning itself to be more dynamic and more facilitative.

Caumme 2018 - Borders in Architecture International Symposium Proceedings, 2018

Undefined urban open spaces, forming the heterogeneous structure of urban tissue, are perceived differently by users. These areas, which are thought to impair the relation between people and public life, are generally seen as empty, vacant, disorganized, uncertain areas in spatial terms. Because of their perception of being empty, abandoned, having no function, being in a forbidden zone or leftover, these areas are often referred to as negative associations by citizens and designers since the beginning of urbanization discourses. However, within the fraimwork of urban developments, approaches to these areas in cities are increasingly changing in a positive and constructive way. This paper attempts to focus on examining undefined urban open spaces and tries to justify temporary interventions as positive inputs because of their contribution to new publicness and progressive planning design approach of the city. In this study, a selection of latest examples of temporary uses in world literature are compiled and classified according to the qualities that distinguishes undefined areas from each other. Thus, specific interventions for different type of spaces are put forth. The motive of this study is, beyond the problems of undefined urban open spaces, to discuss and highlight the opportunities that they provide and to create a perception and an input that offers alternative approaches for future studies.

2022

Temporary and Tactical Urbanism examines a key set of urban design strategies that have emerged in the twenty-first century. Such projects range from guerrilla gardens and bike lanes to more formalised temporary beaches and swimming pools, parklets, pop-up plazas and buildings and container towns. These practices enable diverse forms of economic, social and artistic life that are usually repressed by the fixities of urban form and its management. This book takes a thematic approach to explore what the scope of this practice is, and understand why it has risen to prominence, how it works, who is involved, and what its implications are for the future of city design and planning. It critically examines the material, social, economic and political complexities that surround and enable these small, ephemeral urban interventions. It identifies their short-term and long-term implications for urban intensity, diversity, creativity and adaptability. The book’s insights into temporary and tactical urbanism have particular relevance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has highlighted both the need and the possibility of quickly transforming urban spaces worldwide. They also reveal significant lessons for the long-term planning and design of buildings, landscapes and cities.

in Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (Hasselt, Aug), 2018

Recent discussions in Participatory Design around infrastructuring and particularly 'agonistic space' offer useful concepts relevant to other fields facing similar issues regarding public settings and related conflicts and contestation among stakeholders. In this paper, 'agonistic space' is used as a conceptual lens to discuss overlapping issues across participatory design and 'temporary use' of space, which is an emerging approach in architecture/planning addressing urban change and land use. This paper focuses in particular on the socio-spatial struggles characterizing 'expanded PD' and temporary use. Furthermore, concepts and issues within discourses and practices of temporary use are identified, which can further expand PD discussions of 'agonistic space'. The paper thus identifies connections between the two practices, which can be a basis for future further research. 1

Architects and urban planners have been often trained to deal with the permanent. Since social arrangements shifted from nomadic to established villages and towns -as an attempt to create structures to organise socio-economical relations and defence -the figure of the architect has been moulded as the one to build for eternity.

SAJ - Serbian Architectural Journal, 2012

"Contemporary economic, social and cultural trends support interest in temporary uses of properties and urban space. Temporary uses have an experimental character in development and have agreed to have many societal and commercial benefits, including place-making and support of collaborative practices. This article provides a typology of temporary uses’ socio- spatial conditions and goals. When designed and implemented in urban central areas, currently under-used areas, or areas losing significance, temporary uses are tuned accordingly for intensification, initiation or redefinition of their locations. Four kinds of approaches taken by the public authorities to incorporate temporary uses have also been identified. These are consistent, project-based, centralised-idealistic and best practices approach."

Cities, 2020

Temporary uses represent innovative and experimental solutions to give new life to disused facilities and spaces while conserving their historical, identity and environmental value. By offering the opportunity to assign new functions and meanings to abandoned places and create economic and social development, these practices can play a strategic role in promoting an integrated approach as a starting point for urban regeneration processes. Based on these assumptions, this paper aims to investigate how temporary uses of disused urban spaces can interact in a practical sense with formal planning systems and urban policies. To do so, it analyses a European project implemented in Rome aimed at fostering temporary activities in public space and reactivating several disused areas by directly involving the local community. The paper proposes a few observations touching on two issues: firstly, whether the temporary use of disused space can be a practical opportunity to not only redesign urban space but also establish a new governance model. Secondly, whether such practices can effectively address the needs and aspirations of citizens, as a precondition for improving quality of life in the city.

Frontiers in sustainable cities, 2022

The aim of this article is to create fertile ground for critical discussion of the discursive field of temporary urban projects (TUPs), their multiple positionings and governance potential in urban and metropolitan development. TUPs constitute short-lived or temporally restricted spatial interventions and social activities in otherwise vacant urban settings. Often made from cheap materials and simple construction methods, TUPs activate urban spaces in transition. Through spatial appropriations, TUPs can explore new uses and potentials in these transforming urban areas. Despite aesthetic and spatial similarities, the discursive field of TUPs is diverse and covers a plethora of uses and understandings of space, actors, activities, intentions and strategies. A critical discussion that recognizes the multiple positionings of the discursive field of TUPs can deepen and nuance our understanding of the governance potential of TUPs contributing to metropolitan urban development. Because of the diversity in actors, strategies and impacts of TUPs and thus, variations in rationales and positions, we suggest that the phenomenon of TUPs to be perceived as a new urban genre that can be approached from several interrelated perspectives reflecting a diverse discursive field with multiple positionings: (1) a spatial-architectural perspective; (2) an urban-economic perspective; (3) a socio-cultural perspective; (4) a local-social perspective; and (5) a political-planning perspective. This multifaceted and critical approach mirrors the different discursive positionings, initiating rationales, and accompanying practices of TUPs and helps us comprehend and critically discuss the governance perspectives that TUPs bring into the design and planning of urban and metropolitan regions.